UK UK - Corrie McKeague, 23, Bury St Edmunds, 24 September 2016 #8

[Dcflag]

Was the sugar beet sighting confirm not Corrie or was there nothing on cctv to confirm? Those are two different things

 

[DanceCard]

I felt like the most recent family update was a little more positive, but in hindsight maybe the positive vibe for me comes from the more definitive plan of action perhaps brought about by new information. If this is the case wouldn't that mean before long the investigation will change to homicide without a body?

I know exactly what you mean.

My thoughts have been about the public search mentioned in the update. Having a public search, and a tentative date for it being announced could be indicative of the investigation changing to homicide without a body. It's still quite difficult to get a conviction for murder in those cases (in England at least). They need to find Corrie one way or the other.

 

[Spurslass63]

Was the sugar beet sighting confirm not Corrie or was there nothing on cctv to confirm? Those are two different things

It was confirmed as NOT being Corrie by Nicola

 

[SOMETHINGWILLDO]

I 100% believe that Corrie left the horse shoe area in someone's car - there is a possibility that he may have had an accident after being dropped off somewhere or that he has come to harm by that person. Regardless, the key is the driver, they would be the last to see him.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dcflag]

I know exactly what you mean.

My thoughts have been about the public search mentioned in the update. Having a public search, and a tentative date for it being announced could be indicative of the investigation changing to homicide without a body. It's still quite difficult to get a conviction for murder in those cases (in England at least). They need to find Corrie one way or the other.

I did especially feel like Nicolas recent video was a plea for his body to be returned opposed to "letting him go alive". I hope I don't sound too awful for saying that. I just felt it seemed like the main focus was for the third party to give information on Where Corrie is And the letting him go part was more hindsight or because it had to be put in there.

I wonder if the documentary will reveal any new information? Perhaps it will become a plea for help and mark a change in the investigation, I also think it may confirm the search dates. The documentary to me seems a more personal way of breaking delicate information to the public and conveying the feelings of he family in the hope the third party has a change in conscience.

 

[jslk]

Was the sugar beet sighting confirm not Corrie or was there nothing on cctv to confirm? Those are two different things

I believe that Nicola said that cctv did not bear out a sighting of a man dressed as described, although I'd have to look up the citation.

Sent from my SM-J500FN using Tapatalk

 

[Lolabear]

I can't speak for other posters but I have never said that I believe the family is lying about this.
I've said that in order for me to be convinced by it, I need to hear direct police confirmation that the police are also 100% certain that Corrie couldn't have got away on foot.
Mistakes can be made with CCTV, and no technology is infallible. I believe that the family is convinced about their CCTV theory, I'm not. That does not mean I've said they're lying.

The retired detective said the landfill had been searched, btw. It hasn't. Or so we've been told.

Same here...I'm not calling the family liars, im simply not 100% convinced about not leaving on foot. If the cameras were so clear to see Corrie enter the horseshoe clearly then the camera would surely have a great picture of the car or vehicle he (could of) left in??

 

[eeejay268]

So am I clarifying the following thinking?

hes left the horseshoe either cannily on foot alone; or in a vehicle willingly/unwillingly with person/s unknown

his phone has pinged from BSE towards M and there's the possibility of a 'missing hour' before his phone has stopped working by morning sometime between 5 and 8 depending on your source.

this phone coincidentally followed the movements of a bin lorry but could be considered a red herring in this case

it is also not know whether he had the phone in his possession or wether he and it had been separated

is that where we are pretty much in summary?

 

[eeejay268]

Same here...I'm not calling the family liars, im simply not 100% convinced about not leaving on foot. If the cameras were so clear to see Corrie enter the horseshoe clearly then the camera would surely have a great picture of the car or vehicle he (could of) left in??

Well you'd think!

There has to be a reason why the police are showing their hands looking for witnesses yet playing their cards incredibly close to the chests when referring to the vehicles identified (yet not investigated or at least, so it would be believed)

 

[Dcflag]

So am I clarifying the following thinking?

hes left the horseshoe either cannily on foot alone; or in a vehicle willingly/unwillingly with person/s unknown

his phone has pinged from BSE towards M and there's the possibility of a 'missing hour' before his phone has stopped working by morning sometime between 5 and 8 depending on your source.

this phone coincidentally followed the movements of a bin lorry but could be considered a red herring in this case

is that where we are pretty much in summary?

Pretty much, I'd add that it's not known whether he had his phone or was separated from it

 

[DanceCard]

I did especially feel like Nicolas recent video was a plea for his body to be returned opposed to "letting him go alive". I hope I don't sound too awful for saying that. I just felt it seemed like the main focus was for the third party to give information on Where Corrie is And the letting him go part was more hindsight or because it had to be put in there.

I wonder if the documentary will reveal any new information? Perhaps it will become a plea for help and mark a change in the investigation, I also think it may confirm the search dates. The documentary to me seems a more personal way of breaking delicate information to the public and conveying the feelings of he family in the hope the third party has a change in conscience.

Don't worry about sounding 'awful' !
IME, we've all been very sensitive on this so far on Corrie's threads, which is quite unusual for WS threads which usually pull no punches on this subject.

Again agree with you about Nicola's recent video. I hope the documentary will have something new to go on.

I found this update on the subject of whether or not to arrange public searches, and again reading between the lines it does seem that something new has become known very recently. Or some sort of evidence has been uncovered.

http://www.findcorrie.co.uk/2016/11/06/the-search-6th-november-update/

 

[Dcflag]

Don't worry about sounding 'awful' !
IME, we've all been very sensitive on this so far on Corrie's threads, which is quite unusual for WS threads which usually pull no punches on this subject.

Again agree with you about Nicola's recent video. I hope the documentary will have something new to go on.

I found this update on the subject of whether or not to arrange public searches, and again reading between the lines it does seem that something new has become known very recently. Or some sort of evidence has been uncovered.

http://www.findcorrie.co.uk/2016/11/06/the-search-6th-november-update/

"ncluding to understand what the conditions would be to trigger this request." springs out for me

 

[Lolabear]

The idea you cannot leave the horseshoe without being detected has been BS from the start IMO. It's only now that I see it's probably being touted like that to make someone feel guilty that they are "caught red handed on CCTV" in an effort to get them to come forward. The reality is they probably got away scott free. The other issue is that they wouldn't even have to TRY to evade CCTV for them to fall into the 80% likelihood of being able to anyway.

Greenwoods CCTV cam looks at Corrie's alley for 30 seconds and then elsewhere for 1min 30. If you ain't seen in that 30 seconds, you can go wherever you like from the Horseshoe up Short Brackland and never be seen again. ONLY if you go up towards Greenwoods (like 4 min lurker) or past Cornhill (like running man) will you actually be definitively seen on CCTV again.

Why is Corrie not seen on Greenwoods CCTV after 3.24am? Cos for every 2 minutes of footage it's only looking at the horseshoe for 30 seconds. Someone may do the math and work out how much time that actually equals between 3.30 and 8am. If he and other party (if involved) never went past Cornhill, there's a seriously high chance they'd never be detected again. Personally I feel foot and vehicle could both still be in play, because you can "evade" the horseshoe CCTV on either, and evade the CCTV further out from the horseshoe also on either foot or car.

Omg thankyou!!!! I've always thought he left on foot...since day one. You have concreted my theory!

 

[Polo]

I was under the assumption that short brackland was covered by private cctv

I thought so too, as it was rumoured that the 3 youths had been seen on private CCTV, but then it was later reported that it was the bin lorry driver that had seen them at 4.20am.

A while back I took a walk down Short Brackland into St Johns Street to look for the CCTV but I didn't see any cameras.

If I am right, then Corrie would have been able to walk out of the Horseshoe as long as the Greenwoods Camera was facing the other way, or that he was being screened by a vehicle possibly.

 

[Milspo]

Actually, dogs often are allowed in the block, you just need permission. Quite a lot of people have them in their room, and also bring them into work in the day. And the rooms are NOT soundproof! Anything but actually. So keeping dog in bathroom wouldn't reduce noise.

 

[Milspo]

From what I can ascertain, just from adding up little bits here and there and not from one complete source. The puppy was left in an en suite bathroom in Corrie's quarters, not a communal bathroom. The puppy was trained to be quiet, so he didn't bark loudly when he was left alone. (I'm sure I've read these two things, but I can never remember where I read things or find them again later, so take those two things as you want...the rest of this will be purely my thinking on the matter.) But he's a puppy and being left alone all weekend in a bathroom I expect there was quite a mess and a rather distressed puppy. But there was no need (imho) to leave the puppy in the bathroom for the noise reasons, because the puppy was trained to keep quiet. The logical reason (imho) to leave a puppy in the bathroom overnight is because it's a puppy and left alone in the bedroom would be likely to be finding things to chew or maybe poop or pee. It suggests to me the sort of thing someone would do with a young puppy when they're leaving it for a few hours and don't want their shoes chewed up or poop on their bed when they get back. I have never had a puppy, this is just my opinion going on stories from friends with pups and playful dogs.

But. my opinion is that if someone wasn't planning on coming back, then they wouldn't give two hoots about the chewed shoes and poop on the bed, they'd rather have the puppy in a larger space with the opportunity to sleep on the human bed instead of locked into a tiny bathroom...because they won't be the one clearing up the mess, and the puppy ought to be a little more comfortable in the larger bedroom than the tiny bathroom. So it suggest to me that when Corrie left for the night, he was planning on coming back to that bedroom and being the one to clean it up.

Actually, dogs often are allowed in the block, you just need permission. Quite a lot of people have them in their room, and also bring them into work in the day. And the rooms are NOT soundproof! Anything but actually. So keeping dog in bathroom wouldn't reduce noise.

 

[Shiressleuth]

I can't speak for other posters but I have never said that I believe the family is lying about this.
I've said that in order for me to be convinced by it, I need to hear direct police confirmation that the police are also 100% certain that Corrie couldn't have got away on foot.
Mistakes can be made with CCTV, and no technology is infallible. I believe that the family is convinced about their CCTV theory, I'm not. That does not mean I've said they're lying.

The retired detective said the landfill had been searched, btw. It hasn't. Or so we've been told.

I ve always assumed nothing is impossible so everything should be questioned or proved. Colin Sutton himself (the retired detective) even mentioned going over the roofs and TW still has left on foot as one of his options.

 

[Dcflag]

All this does really is bring us back to the same basic premise, he left the horseshoe and we don't know how.

To climb over buildings would suggest actively evading cctv. The waiting actions before the 3.25am footage suggest the third party.

 

[Miss_French]

Hi all

Some-time reader, first time poster so bear with me (took some time to be able to log in - big thanks to admin for sorting me out).

Just to throw something else into the mix about CCTV and the 'horseshoe' area: if Corrie had a lift was arranged, who suggested this place for the pick-up and why?

The obvious place to do a pick-up is in the loading bay by Hughes as it's easy access by road; for the non-locals, you drive up St Andrews Street North passing the Mamma Mia Takeaway on your right, turn left on to Brentgovel Street, park up, then head out of town by the next left, St John's Street. Even if Corrie went into the horseshoe for a wee or maybe because it was a bit more sheltered than staying huddling in the doorway, he's not a million ways away from Brentgovel Street.

 

[eeejay268]

As regards Corrie body language on the last cctv footage, I'm not very good with discerning stuff like that, but to me he looked almost sheepish? Almost like he knew he was doing something wrong? Or even wistful, glancing back a few times. It was that posturing that made me think initially awol. Can't quite work it out....